Pages

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Stacy Barker Murder Trial Set To Get Under Way? Will it be April or Will It Be May?

Stacey Barker 2009 booking photo
Stacey Barker is a 26 year old Quartz Hills, CA woman accused of killing her 18 month old daughter 2 years ago. During this time, friends of Katfish....Ponders  have been attending the pretrial hearings and sharing what they see and hear. Once again I want to thank these caring women Toria, Ange, Tiffany Diamond, ANurse, and LeftCoastMom for taking time out of their busy lives to attend the hearings.

Anyone who has been following this case will understand the reason I wrote the title to this post as a question, there has been a lot of delays...trial dates set and postponed, failed plea deal negotiations, and more, more, more delays. I'm to the point that I won't believe this trial is happening until I know that a jury has been seated. What I want to do in this post is update you on some recent hearings and what we do know about the (alleged) upcoming trial. :)

                   ~ Case Background  ~

On March 18, 2009 at about 11:00 P.M., Stacey Barker's brother Nick made a 911 call to report his sister was at a Park n Ride (PnR) in Palmdale, CA and needed assistance. He reported his sister had called him for help. We don't know exactly what Stacey told her brother when she called him, but he and her (then?) boyfriend Brendon were already at the PnR when police arrived 3 minutes after the 911 call.

Precious Emma Leigh Barker
  Stacey Barker told police she was attacked as she was loading her 18 month old daughter, Emma Leigh Barker, into her car at the Lancaster, CA city park (after playtime). Barker reported the next thing she can recall was "coming to" 6 hours later at the Palmdale PnR about 15 miles from the Lancaster park,  and realized she was injured, only partially clothed, and her baby,, Emma, was missing....Detectives said that Barker did have injuries consistent with a struggle, including bruises on her head and was taken to the hospital for treatment.

Authorities say after making various inconsistent statements, Barker finally admitted making up the abduction story and inflicting the wounds on herself. She said Emma died accidentally, but fearing she would be blamed for Emma's death, she panicked and left her daughter's body in some tall grass near a freeway. Some 12 hours later, Barker led police to Emma’s body, where she had dumped her,  in a grassy lot near the Golden State Freeway in Sylmar, CA.

On April 23, 2009 Barker was arrested at her grandparents home, where she had reportedly began staying sometime after Emma's death. She has been incarcerated at the Central Regional Detention Center since her arrest. Barker was appointed a public defender, Roberto F. Dager(RD). Her bail was set at 1 million dollars. The charges filed against the young mother include Second-Degree Murder, Assault on a Child Causing Death and one count of Child Abuse. The complaint alleges that Barker willfully caused and permitted the child to be injured and harmed and that injury resulted in death. The state of California alleges that Barker suffocated her daughter. Stacey Barker(SB) formally entered a not guilty plea to all counts on August 12, 2009. Representing the state in this case is Los Angeles County Deputy District Attorney S. "Kelly" Cromer(KC). The judge overseeing this case is Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey (JZ).

              ~ Recent Case Developments ~

Even though there has been a number of hearings in the last month in preparation for trial, there really hasn't been much new to report until last week. To be honest the hearings have mainly consisted of a lot of bickering between the state and the defense over discovery, witnesses and outstanding motions....normal trial stuff although I'm surprised a lot of this wasn't completed long ago. Judge Zackey has been more than liberal...in my opinion ...especially with the defense. If Stacey Barker is convicted, she shouldn't have grounds to appeal based on ineffective counsel. Mr Dager has provided her with a very vigorous defense and filed every kind of motion you can think of. As a true crime and trial junkie, Katfish ponders has often wondered if law school includes a course on whining...if that course is offered, Roberto Dager was probably his teacher's pet. LOL!

This is what Tori had to say about the hearing on March 24, "Another slow ride on the Justice train, although Kelly makes it worth the wait, she is Awesome!"
I don't think Ms. Cromer would mind if I referred to her as a bulldog (She is a dog breeder and active in dog shows in her personal life). From what the girls tell me, Cromer doesn't give Dager an inch, and if she has to bark loud to be heard over Dager's whining she lets it rip. Perhaps a more tactful way to put it is they are both "passionate" about their adversarial roles. LOL!

The "debates" between the state and defense at this hearing were primarily about expert witnesses for both parties. Kelly Cromer asked Roberto Dager (once again) about getting a report from Dr. Harry Bonnell.

Dager told the court that Cromer has talked to Bonnell and she knows what he is going to say.
KC said "Dr. Bonnell was supposed to be here for a "402" your honor"
JZ asks RD, " Where is he?"
Dager replied, " I am not going to have him come here from San Diego just for this special occasion".(We didn't understand that remark??) RD continued," I want to know why you are singling me out. I thought you were going to do a 402 with Ribe too? She knows everything I know!."
KC said, " Your honor, does he expect this court to believe he does not know what his own witness is going to testify to? He is just trying to stall the case and drag his feet again and I would ask the court that if I don't have what Dr.Bonnell is going to testify to, that he be excluded as a witness.
JZ said, "Mr. Dager, just have Dr. Bonnell write a small report and give it or email it to KC."

(According to my notes, KC was asking RD for Dr. Bonnell's report as far back as February 2010. At that time RD told the court, that Dr. Bonnell, a Forensic Pathologist will testify there are tests that Dr. Ribe (Los Angeles County Deputy Coroner James K. Ribe) failed to perform on Emma that would change the cause and manner of death but wouldn't elaborate.) 

Next RD said something about KC talking to Dr.Ribe about the mistakes she said Dr. Ribe made...oooooohhhh she (KC ) yelled," I DID NOT SAY HE MADE ANY MISTAKES! YOUR HONOR WHAT I SAID WAS I FOUND SOMETHING IN THE REPORT THAT I MISSED, BUT IT WAS THERE THE ENTIRE TIME! I do not want it in the press that I said Dr. Ribe made a mistake! RD knows that is not what I said, but he wants to say that in court so people will think that is what was said,  and no, I have not talked to the Dr. at this time.

There was some other discussions about discovery and another witness but what I have told you so far should give you an idea about how this hearing went. Cromer and Dager did not agree on ANYTHING!
Judge Zackey told the parties he has a trial the rest of the week so the next hearing will be on 4/1, then he'll rule on the motions that were brought up earlier in the case. (?) The judge said he wants to set the trial date for the week of April 4th, noting that might change if the trial he has in progress goes longer and the hearing was over. 


The April 1 hearing started out with Judge Zackey telling Roberto Dager and Kelly Cromer that today they will all act professionally......adding he was glad he had DECAF today. ( Emphasis mine.This judge has been very lenient IMO )

Kelly Cromer told the court that Dr.Bonnell still hasn't given his statement and he's not here today as the court ordered, so she asks that Dr. Bonnell be excluded as a witness. Judge Zackey told Dager to call Dr.Bonnell and ask him to submit the report.

RD said " I AM NOT GOING TO CALL HIM". The state knows what I know. They have talked to him, they know what he is going to say. I am not going to call him.
JZ asked RD, "So...are you going to be calling him as a witness?" RD said, " I can't say yet."
JZ told RD, " It sounds like you are not going to use him as a witness."
JZ then asked if Dr. Bonnell was going to say something different then Dr.Ribe?
RD told the judge," Dr. Bonnell will say the same thing as Dr. Ribe, that there is no conclusive cause of death."

KC said, "I am tired of him misstating the facts your honor! Dr.Ribe has a cause and manner of death and it's in the the Coroners report."
RD said, " Dr.Ribes opinion was influenced by the Sheriff's office and they led him to conclude the manner of death was a homicide."
JZ told RD he will have to give KC a statement from DB by 1:30PM today or he is going to start imposing sanctions per sec 1054..he goes on to outline sanctions that can be imposed.....

We don't know what RD objected to but he said he vigorously OBJECTS to that! JZ said," I'll tell you what I'll do, I'll have my reporter put it in the Record in BOLD and UNDERLINED that you OBJECT! (Yep, good thing he had decaf )

We're not sure who brought it up, but the conversation shifts....there are two 6 pack photo line ups that a witness has made an ID on. The person(s) who was identified in the photo line ups was reportedly at the Park n Ride on March 18. RD said something about a conspiracy and asks why is this just being brought up now? Dager tells the court he wants copies of the 6 packs and some phone records. The state contends there was a flurry of text messages they want in at trial. JZ said that he would sign a order for the phone company to give Dager the records within a week.

Tori said she doesn't know if BB (Stacey's boyfriend) got a phone call or had to use the restroom, but he got up and left the courtroom when this discussion about PnR was brought up, he did, however, come right back. There will be more discussion about this photo lineup at a future hearing.(BB hasn't attended another hearing since....which wouldn't necessarily be remarkable, except that he has attended nearly every hearing up to this point.)
Discussion returns to Dr. Bonnell. Judge Zackey tells both sides they will go "In Camera".  The judge, the court reporter, and both sides leave for a bit. When they come back, JZ asks RD," OK, so you will not be calling Dr. Bonnell as a witness, is that right?" RD said, " No, I will not be calling Dr. Bonnell.....

JZ said that the next court date is 4/11 adding they have 10 days to start the trial from that date. JZ thinks that jury selection may take more than the 1 or 2 days ( the norm?) , but the trial he is in right now is going at a snails pace so he doesn't mention an actual date for the trial to start..(T, did I get this right from your notes?)

JZ is about to wrap up the hearing when RD said, " There are 2 defense witnesses in the court today." JZ asked them to stand and state their names and spell them for the court reporter. One is Amber Barela, a friend and co-worker of Stacey. We don't know why she is on the witness list. Earlier in the case she commented at a few forums in defense of Stacey, but made it clear she has absolutely no idea what was going on with Stacey around the time Emma died.(We've heard they were fighting) The other witness is Jennifer Goodnight, a supervisor over Amber and Stacey at Bank Of America.
Kelly Cromer said, " I want to state for the record the witnesses are seated with the Barker family...so Roberto Dager shoots back...."I want to note one is wearing Gray and one wearing black." Dager then told the court that he hasn't spoke to these witnesses yet and he wants to talk to them after the hearing is over. KC said she wanted to speak with them as well. This hearing is over....minus one expert, for sure...plus 2 defense witnesses? who knows...were they expected to testify to something today? and no trial date....yet.

The April 11 hearing was short and sweet in more ways than one. Short because it didn't take long, sweet because it was short, but more notably because Kelly Cromer and Roberto Dager were being nice to each other...

JZ calls the attorneys to the bench and they have a talk for about 10 minutes. After the attorneys returned to their tables, JZ calls "going on the record" and right away confirmed with both attorneys that the trial is going to be assigned to his courtroom and he would be the judge on the trial. Is that correct RD? Yes! Is that correct KC? Yes! Okay so we have established that it will be here. (Hmmm...can't tell you what that was about, whether there was an issue or if this is just procedure?)

JZ said  that the bus from the jail is having problems, so we have no inmates yet. Dager agreed to waive his client's right to be present. Zackey said "We'll come back on 4/13 to finish up on the motions, 402's and discovery. I want to start jury selection by the 18th adding, I think it will take a few days and a lot of jurors will be dismissed so I am ordering 60 to start with."

JZ  told RD to give the Massiah Motion (that you have written up) to KC today. KC said she will be in her office until 6 tonight, so if RD could get it to her before then it would be great, adding he tends to come in at 4:30 on the dot to give her things...JZ said you both know each others office numbers so you can get in touch by calling...RD said he would give her his cell # as well.( Several days were spent questioning witness and arguing the Massiah Motion. The only reason I can think of for giving it to the state now is that they agreed to some revisions. ??)

KC said that she still hadn't gotten some of the defense witness's statements so she will ask to exclude them at next hearing.

RD wanted to confirm the court would be ruling on his Change Of Venue, Media Exclusion and Massiah Motions at the next hearing..(The judge ruled against the COV motion earlier in the case, so the defense must have made another COV motion, but given the statements at the beginning of today's hearing that this case would stay it Zackey's court... it is confusing)

Judge Zackey said....so everyone is ready for trial? Mr.Dager? Yes. Ms.Cromer? Yes. Zackey replied, "OK, see you here on the 13th." This hearing was over

There was a lot of information covered in April 13 hearing. The state has 7 or 8 and the defense 38 motions (402) not including the defense Massiah Motion that the court needs to make rulings on.Many of the motions were to include or exclude photographs.
Some interesting information came out but it wasn't always clear which or whose motions the information was related to, so I'll just share the information and each sides stance as we understand it.

1)  It was disclosed that 2 people were identified by a witness at the Palmdale Park n Ride where Emma was first reported missing by Stacey Barker. The two 6 pack line up photos were introduced at the hearing on April 1 and clarified further today. Identified were Brendon Borelli (Stacey's boyfriend at the time Emma died) and Nick Barker (Stacey's brother). Before now, in our posts we have usually identified Brendon Borelli as just Brendon or BB, but now that his name is a part of the public record, if we use initials it's for convenience.

Nick Barker was positively identified, but the witness had trouble doing a 100 % ID of BB from the 6 pack line up alone....What this witness (female ParknRide security) said was that she saw Stacey Barker and a man pull into the PnR in the same vehicle. The witness said that soon after they arrived, she noticed the male was gone and a red car was leaving the lot. She was certain that the man who had arrived with Stacey was the same man who returned later with Nick Barker Brendon Borelli).

2) The State wants to use photos of Emma in the location her body was left/dumped, because they show the state of Rigor that Emma was in. KC said they go to show that SB had driven around with Emma dead in the car for HOURS. (ugh! use your imagination) The defense wants any and all pictures of Emma's dead body excluded. I'm not sure what the state's stance is on the autopsy photos, but I would be surprised if they didn't want at least a few in for the jury's eyes only. (Perhaps one of our intrepid court reporters can clarify.) The defense also wants a drawing excluded that allegedly depicts hand marks on Emma's nose and forehead.
UPDATE- The state is not requesting to use any autopsy photos! Thanks T!

3)Another defense motion attempts to exclude testimony from Detectives Nava and McCarthy about their interview / interrogation of Stacey Barker after she was released from the hospital on March 19, 2009. Dager just wants the state to use the audio tapes of the interview to present the evidence of Barker's statements to law enforcement. Cromer argued against that saying that the detectives could better convey Barker's demeanor to the jury and if Dager wants to use the tapes to try and impeach them, fine. The defense doesn't want barker's booking photo used at trial either.

4) Earlier in the case we heard mention of an incident in the holding area at the courthouse. We learned what this is all about....one of the officers allegedly called SB a BABY KILLER and RD objects to her being called names like that by law enforcement. KC said the incident was unsubstantiated. RD said it shows that all LE are against SB and that they are all trying to turn everyone against her, but he concedes he thinks if these deputies get on the stand that they will not confess to saying anything that would get them fired. KC says this has no relevance to Emma's death so doesn't belong in this case to begin with. KC did say if Barker wants to get on the stand maybe they can get it in.

5) Barker was treated by a SART (sexual abuse response team) at the hospital because she said that she had been raped, RD does not want repetitive statements from the Dr.s, Nurses and anyone else she talked to at the hospital...KC said it is relevant because SB claimed she was raped and did have moderate vaginal bruising....(personally I think RD might be right on this one, it should definitely come in that the "rape" was part of her "story" but unless she made incriminating statements they don't need to "elaborate" they know she wasn't raped. kat)

6)The defense wants a large number of pictures and hours of video admitted to show that SB was a loving mother  and how clean the house was and nice Emma's room was decorated . KC said it was a room in Stacey's parent's home and since the parents and other family members were with Emma more then SB, they may have had as much or more than SB to do with the design of  room and the up keep of the home and Emma's room.

7) RD wants evidence and testimony about a party the night before Emma's funeral excluded. Dager said the family had a dinner/get together the night before Emma's funeral...KC called it a party and wanted everyone to know that at this party they played BEER PONG. Dager said it was a just a get together, not a party and the younger people did play Beer Pong but not SB, he said...her Mom even played ...JZ looked amazed and said wait...Emma's Mom or SB's Mom? RD said SB's Mom.
 
8)The defense wants Barker un-cuffed and un-shackled in front of the jury. They should prevail on this motion because defendants are normally allowed to wear street clothes and are un-cuffed in front of a jury so the jury won't be prejudiced by the defendants appearance. I have seen shackles left on defendants with the tables for both parties skirted so the jury doesn't see the shackles but those have been cases of violent inmates.
Judge Zackey said that the 13th was a fact finding hearing and he still has to rule on the 402's and the Massiah Motion (related to witness x) on the 14th. JZ said he will even take the hearings into Friday if needed because he wants all this stuff done before 4/18, the day he is going to start jury selection and the trial will start once the Jury has been selected...on that day or the day after.....

Before the court went on the record for the April 14 hearing Kelly Cromer gave Roberto Dager a time-stamped copy of the police report from the security guard at the Palmdale Park n Ride. Tori mentioned it was obvious the attorneys were going to be nice to each other again today. Think they had a pep talk from the judge? We can only wonder.

Once on the record, Judge Zackey said that he had went through the 402's at home last night and reviewed the tapes of Detective Sandra Nava's interviews with Witness X and had made some rulings.

JZ ruled that before X went to law enforcement he was NOT a Government Agent, therefore he would be allowed to testify to what he and SB talked about before X contacted the Sheriff's office. At that time X was not infringing on Barker's rights, so there's no need to address Massiah for that. JZ added if the state is going to use any of the recordings made after X was in contact with, they will have to talk about this Massiah Motion again for that. KC said that she did not think she was going to use the tapes but she would listen to them and see if there was anything she wanted to use and let JZ and RD know so they could talk about it.


They talked about pictures again, 2 photo albums full, KC only wants some photos allowed, RD said they need to have both full albums to prove what a good Mother SB was to Emma, How in all the pictures that she was well dressed and matched in colors of clothing, blanket, socks etc....she was not just a kid in a teeshirt and diaper. KC said something about most people do dress their kids well for pictures. Then she talked about how the Barker's parents took care of Emma for the most part and her brother also took care of her for SB. Kelly Cromer told the court that Barker's mother had Emma in the day while SB worked and SB's father had her at night when she was out partying... 

(Stacey Barker's family were shaking there heads....as if to say NO we did not watch Emma...in early interviews Barker's father  had said the family adjusted their work schedules to be available to care for Emma. In defense of Stacey, Amber B. told some of us that if SB was out and they called her that Emma woke up, she would go home right away...so how can they say no they didn't watch her when SB was OUT...will they testify differently? That remains to be seen.)

Whew were almost done here folks. No one from our group was able to attend the hearing on Friday the 15th. Tori said her daughter was at the courthouse on Friday and checked in on Judge Zackey's courtroom during a break in the case she was attending, but the courtroom was locked. None of the local media reported anything on Saturday so we don't even know if there was a hearing Friday.

On Monday, April 18 Tori went to the courthouse to see if she could sit in on the Jury Voir Dire, but no one was in the courtroom. On Tuesday, Tori again went to Judge Zackey's courtroom and the calendar on the outside of the door was FULL but nothing for Stacey Barker was on the list...She said she saw RD but no KC,  so she went home and called someone she knows that would know the scoop. She was told that something like 70 Jurors had been asked for and 57 did come to the courtroom at about 10:30 they had gave the questionnaires to the potential jurors and told them to fill them out and come back on Thursday.  JZ is in downtown on Wednesday so his court is dark.
T's  friend said that they will start polling the Venires on Thursday, 4/21 and maybe go into Friday (no doubt, that is a lot of people) then if a panel is picked they will allow a couple of days for opening statements to be prepared by both sides. So...it looks like the trial could start as early as April 25th or as late as May 2nd....
We still don't know what most of Judge Zackey's rulings were or if he ruled on allowing cameras in the courtroom...I guess we will just have to wait for trial to find that out.

Here is the only media report we have came across so far about jury selection (Thanks LCM):

Jury selection starts in Palmdale child death


Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, April 17, 2011

Motion Of The Day...Once Again Nicholas Sheley Wants To Go Pro Se- Updated

Updated 4/17/2011 at bottom of post

 original post April 4
Newest mugshots at Pontiac Correctional Center
When I left home on March 29, 2011 for the Knox County courthouse to attend a case management hearing in the capital murder case of  Nicholas Sheley, accused of killing Ronald Randall,65, in Galesburg, IL., I told Mr. Katfish not to expect me back for several hours as this might turn out to be a long hearing.

This will be the first trial that Sheley faces related to the June 2008 killing spree of eight people that he is accused of. He also faces first degree murder charges in Whiteside County, IL for the deaths of 5 people and Festus, MO for the death of 2 other people. You can read about the killing spree here if you aren't familiar with the case.

I'm not sure what to expect today because this is the first hearing since IL Governor Patrick Quinn signed off on legislation to abolish the death penalty in IL on March 9. That legislation doesn't take effect until July 1, 2011, so unless the state decides to take the DP off the table before then, this will continue as a capital murder case until the legislation takes effect. At the last hearing, on February 4, there was discussion of discovery and evidentiary issues that may be argued at today's hearing, March 29. I wasn't able to blog about that hearing but
will reference it some in this post.

At a hearing on February 4, both parties argued a

 DEFENSE MOTION TO VACATE COURT ORDER AND FOR OTHER RELIEF
 and
 THE STATES RESPONSE TO DEFENSE MOTION TO VACATE COURT ORDER AND FOR OTHER RELIEF.

According to the Defense Motion To Vacate, There was a closed hearing on September 14, 2010  where the parties argued the State's First Motion in Limine to Admit Course Of Conduct Evidence and the Defense Response. After the Court reviewed the written and oral arguments of both parties, the court made a ruling as to what evidence would be allowed and ordered the state to prepare an order reflecting the court's ruling. On December 15, 2010 the state presented the order to the defense for review and the next day the state submitted the order to the court. The defense argued they had not been given sufficient time to review the order and the court allowed 2 weeks for resolve the issue with the state. It seems when the defense responded to the office of Bill Elward on December 28th so they could resolve any disputes to the language in the order, he was out of the office and he didn't return until January 2. On January 3 the court issued the ruling without further input from the parties; therefore, the defense sought to have the order vacated and reissued.

I can't tell you much about the order because it was under seal along with the original briefings. It was disclosed in the Defense Motion To Vacate that during the closed hearing the state conceded that even though they previously had stated in open court that they would seek to admit every prior bad act in Sheley's history, they had decided they would not seek to use every prior bad act, but just those relevant to this case....that is unless the defense opens that door at trial.

On February 4 Judge James Stewart said he held the order for 2 weeks and no one objected or let him know there was a problem so he issued the order on January 3. The state contends they tracked the court's ruling from the transcript of the September 14 hearing word for word.  Judge Stewart ordered both sides to file a redacted motion in limine with an offer of proof and a defense response within 2 weeks to be placed in the public record. (redaction's to eliminate any course of conduct evidence not allowed to be used). If I understand it correctly in the defense motion to vacate they contend, on September 14, the judge didn't make a ruling on the evidence but would tailor the courts ruling to was what specified in the the hearing by the state.

 Last week I picked up the redacted copies of the motions and pleadings, however I didn't see a new order in the file. It's possible I missed it, that is a heavy file. I linked all of the motions and pleadings mentioned in this post that aren't sealed on my docstock account so you can read them. As it turns out the course of conduct evidence wasn't even discussed in the March 29 hearing but I have been told it will be dealt with in the future.


PEOPLE'S OFFER OF PROOF IN SUPPORT OF ITS FIRST MOTION IN LIMINE TO ADMIT COURSE OF CONDUCT EVIDENCE 
and the  
DEFENSE RESPONSE TO THE PEOPLE'S FIRST MOTION OF LIMINE AND OFFER OF PROOF.

I was expecting an interesting hearing....and man ~ o ~ man interesting is an understatement.

Here is my in the courtroom report from the March 29 hearing:

When I came into the courtroom I wasn't surprised to see there were several from Ronald Randall's family here, they always arrive early and sit in  front row behind the prosecution. In the second row behind them is Shirley Pringle, the Knox County Victims Rights Advocate and a woman I have seen in court with Shirley before although I have never met her. The front row behind the defense table was reserved for the accredited press and there were already three members of the press seated.

In the second row behind the press was lead defense attorney Jeremy Karlin's administrative assistant and another young woman who looked familiar but I couldn't place.(I later learn she is Marissa Pendergrass from the CBS channel 4 (WHBF) in the Quad Cities. I embedded Marissa's video of Sheley leaving the courthouse and interviews with the State's Attorney, John Pepmeyer and Lead Defense Counsel, Jeremy Karlin at the end of my "in the courtroom" report...be sure to check it out.)

 I went behind Shirley and the other woman to my regular seat against a pole at the farthest end of the second row. After I took my seat, Shirley introduced me to the woman with her, her name is Stacy Dutton. Stacy is a very pleasant woman. I learned that Stacy is Shirley's replacement as Knox County Victim's Rights Advocate. Shirley tells me she retired last Fall. How the heck did I miss that? I did miss some hearings in November and December but the Shirley has been at every hearing I have attended so I didn't realize she was gone. LOL! Congratulations to Shirley and to Stacy!

The attorneys for both sides are standing at their tables. On the far right going left for the state is Michael Atterberry Assistant Attorney General, then Knox County State's Attorney John Pepmeyer, and closest to the defense is Bill Elward Assistant Attorney General. At the defense table right to left is court appointed Lead Attorney Jeremy Karlin and next to him is Co-counsel Anthony Vaupel, there is an empty chair next to Vaupel for the defendant.The court reporter and clerk are in place. It looks like everyone is ready to go to work. All we need now is the defendant and the judge. The clock is gone in the courtroom so I won't be able to track time. I see the Bailiff get confirmation they were ready for Sheley and shortly after he is escorted into the courtroom by several IL Department of Corrections officers and several Knox County Sheriff's deputies and bailiffs.

Nicholas Sheley is wearing a white button down short sleeve shirt and black pants. His hair seems to have grown out even since the latest mugshot at Pontiac shown above and is slicked back reminiscent of a 60's greaser. I wonder why his clothing has changed ? He used to wear a tan scrubs when coming from Pontiac. Has his status changed at the prison or have they just had a uniform change? If anyone knows I would like to hear. Last I knew he was in protective custody....has he been moved to general population? The waist and ankle shackles are louder today as he walks in and they look a little heavier...another hmmm. As soon as Sheley gets seated he says fairly loud, "What the fuck you looking at?" Vaupel touches his arm as if to say calm down. Sheley's comment seems to be directed at Bill Elward. For some reason Mr. Elward seems to be on Sheley's 'list'. He wrote a long scathing letter to the Ninth Circuit Judge James Stewart on Christmas Day 2009 about Bill Elward that was made a part of the public record. I have the letter posted here. Sheley motions for Jeremy Karlin to come over and then Sheley, Karlin and Vaupel go back to the holding area outside of the courtroom with the security detail.

Judge Stewart enters the courtroom and calls court to order then notices that the defense table is empty so we wait, the attorneys and those of us in the gallery go ahead and sit down.. It didn't take long before Sheley, his security detail and attorneys come back in. Sheley doesn't look happy. I can't see either attorney's face.
Stewart acknowledges both parties for the record and says," This case management hearing has been scheduled per Supreme Court rules." He mentions that the new law passed by the Governor takes away the death penalty, effective July 1, and notes that will effect this case.

John Pepmeyer stands to address the court and says that counsel for both parties have met prior to the hearing and agreed to September 19, 2011 for a trial date. That lightens the atmosphere in the courtroom a bit....it's about time. When Judge Stewart confirms that date with Jeremy Karlin, it's apparent Mr. Karlin is frustrated. (I don't think he even rose to address the court, which is unusual for him) Karlin replies he has no authority to set a trial date because of the document Mr. Sheley has just handed him. 

John Pepmeyer once again addresses the court and says the state is filing a motion to "de-certify" the death penalty in this case, adding the death penalty is no longer an available remedy in this case. (So it's official this is no longer a death penalty case as of today.) Judge Stewart makes sure the defense has a copy from the state. Pepmeyer also said he wants to make a record the people have tendered discovery labeled 14, contains enumerated fingerprint evidence. (Anthony Vaupel brought up this fingerprint evidence at the February hearing. I also remember Vaupel saying something about a deposition but I can't remember if that had to do with the fingerprints. My notes do say the state response was if the Governor signed the legislation the defense would not be entitled to the deposition. Moot point now I guess.)


Jeremy Karlin approached the bench and presented the court with a motion handwritten by Sheley stating his intention to represent himself.  This motion seems to have caught defense counsel by surprise as much as everyone else. Karlin gave the thick stack of papers to the judge and said they have not even read the motion yet and Sheley had advised the court this was the only copy. Karlin continued speaking as he returned to the defense table.....Mr. Sheley has instructed by his Pro Se Motion to bar any court appointed defense or any further mental health evaluation.

Bill Elward stood and said, " If he wants to play lawyer let him, and he can follow the rules. I apologize, this is just one more tactic from this defendant. If he wants to represent himself he must follow procedure. In order to file a motion he must provide copies to all parties, the court should not accept the motion until then."

Sheley is whispering to his attorneys. Judge Stewart says he will give 30 days for the defense to read the motion and decide how they will proceed. Stewart gets a date from the clerk and says April 25 at 9:30 a.m. adding there already has been an expert who has filed a report.

Elward addresses the court again, "For the record two Doctors evaluated and filed reports. (He says something about funding that I missed.) At what point do we get a copy? We are abundantly aware this is a delay occasioned by the defendant."

Sheley asks to address the court. Judge Stewart tells him he can't at this point. One of his attorney speaks for Sheley, " There are no copies because the exhibits included with the motion are under seal. There is no expectation of privacy in the DOC library anyone could see them. Not trying to play a game."

(My notes say he still has the obligation. It is what it is - remains un-filed. Sorry this is so cryptic, my notes don't say who said this, whether it is the judge or the state, likely it was Mr. Elward because my notes do show he spoke next.) 

Elward addresses the court again, " Ask Mr. Sheley if he is aware of the consequences? (of filing the motion)  We will be able to read and review."

Sheley then acknowledges that he understands.

( I have a few cryptic notes again  with no mention of who spoke....about a Motion to Extend, a Motion to Compel, additional discovery or affirmative defenses, trial testimony from his brother's trial. I believe these are issues that would have been addressed today until Sheley dropped his latest bombshell. I drew an arrow to the April 25 date, so evidently these issues will be addressed then.)

  
Judge Stewart says," We do still have to address this change in the law as to Mr. Vaupel. This should end Mr. Vaupel's services. " Stewart then ended the hearing.

  
Jeremy Karlin stands and asks the court to go back on record. Once we are back on record Karlin says
" Those documents were filed under seal to preserve the jury pool."
Elward is on his feet my notes just say NO.
Judge Stewart says he will not protect Mr. Sheley from his decisions, most were filed under seal because this was a capital case .(Emphasis mine)
John Pepmeyer asks the court to make copies of Sheley's motion....(which makes the motion public record).
I honestly didn't hear the judge end the hearing again...my thoughts were more along the lines of I want a copy of that motion. And $73.00 later I have it! I will address Sheley's motion and the exhibits he included in another post...this is long enough. A few thoughts from skimming the motion is that Sheley says over and over again how well he has conducted himself in court....well...except for that one time when he wasn't allowed to represent himself earlier in the case. I guess starting out this hearing with "What the fuck you looking at " just might count as a second example where he couldn't control himself. Included in the exhibits with Sheley's motion are his psych evaluations....it is noted he has impulse control problems....well yeah, ya think?! Stay tuned and be sure to watch Channel 4's video under this paragraph.



****************************************************************



UPDATE 4/17- Here is are  links to  Nicholas Sheley's handwritten Pro Se Motion. I am having trouble loading it on Docstock as a whole document, so I have split it into 3 parts. Be advised that on part 1 page 22 shows up first because I missed it when scanning. I can get page 22 in it's proper spot as a whole document  but not when separated as Docstock is requiring. grrrr...I WILL figure this out!

Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 1
Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 2
Nicholas Sheley Handwritten Pro Se Motion part 3 Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Nicholas Sheley's Spring Makeover....New Address, New Mugshot, New Look !


        Nicholas Sheley Moved Again... Goodbye Pontiac, Hello Stateville.

Katfish....ponders has learned that accused spree killer Nicholas Sheley, 31, was moved up to Stateville Correction Center from the Pontiac facility on April 11, 2011. I haven't heard the reason for the move yet, but would love to hear if any readers know why he was moved. Pontiac and Stateville are both Level 1 Maximum Security Adult Male facilities. Stateville is further than Pontiac from Galesburg, so apparently, the move wasn't made to put him closer to the murder trial that is expected to begin in early Fall. The trial in Galesburg will be Sheley's first murder trial related to the 2008 week-long killing spree he is accused of that left eight dead. He is expected to face at least three more trials after the Knox County case.

In October 2009, Knox County Circuit Court Judge Stephen Mathers sentenced Sheley to seven years in prison for a September conviction on charges resulting from an incident at the Knox County Jail in April 2009 where he was being held on a 10 million dollar bond for murder charges . Sheley was convicted on 3 counts of Aggravated Assault, 1 count of Aggravated Battery and 1 count of Criminal Damage to Government Property. Sheley broke apart a metal chair and threw the legs at peace and correctional officers causing them injury. He also punched one of the officers. Sheley was actually sentenced to three 7 year sentences and a 1 year sentence for the Knox County Jail incident; however; Judge Mathers ruled the sentences will be served concurrently and the DOC determined Sheley is eligible for 50% time...that is why it is listed on DOC records below that his projected parole date is 10/2012.  Click here to read about that incident and trial.



K77192 - SHELEY, NICHOLAS T.
Parent Institution: STATEVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER
Offender Status: IN CUSTODY
Location: STATEVILLE

PHYSICAL PROFILE

Date of Birth: 07/31/1979
Weight: 180 lbs.
Hair: Brown
Sex: Male
Height: 5 ft. 10 in.
Race: White
Eyes: Blue

MARKS, SCARS, TATTOOS
TATTOO, CHEST - SPIDER, WOMAN,"MONICA"
TATTOO, ARM, RIGHT - REAPER, WIZARD, DRAGON, CRYSTAL BALL
TATTOO, ARM, LEFT - CROSS, RIBBON, SUN W/ FACE
TATTOO, ABDOMEN - "SHE" ; L FINGER: "NICK"
TATTOO, LEG, LEFT - NIKE SYMBOL/"JUST DO IT"

ADMISSION / RELEASE / DISCHARGE INFO

Admission Date: 11/06/2009
Projected Parole Date: 10/17/2012
Last Paroled Date:
Projected Discharge Date: 10/17/2014

                                        ABOUT STATEVILLE FACILITY:
 The facility sits on a total of 2,264 acres of land with a 33-foot wall with guard towers surrounding it. This adult male maximum-security facility consists of a 22-bed infirmary in the health care unit and three living units that house general population, segregation, protective custody and temporary writ inmates.
                                             Stateville facility Opened: March 1925                                             
*Operational Capacity: 3,868
Level 1 Maximum Adult Male
*Current Population: 3,599
Average inmate Age: 34
Average Annual Cost Per Inmate: $32,693.00




I'm still working on getting Sheley's 59 page handwritten motion reviewed and scanned so I can share it here.  Nicholas Sheley presented the Pro Se Motion at his last pre-trial hearing (March 29)  requesting to fire his court appointed attorney and represent himself in his upcoming murder trial for the 2008 death of Ronald Randall in Galesburg, IL . Including attached exhibits, the motion is nearly 300 pages so it is taking some time to digest it all. Check back :)

The next hearing is scheduled for April 25.

Prior postings about this case at katfish...ponders
Sphere: Related Content

Tuesday, March 15, 2011

Nicholas Sheley Murder Case - IL Governor Abolishes The Death Penalty


Nicholas T. Sheley at Pontiac Correctional Center 2011
 It has been quite some time since I have written about the capital murder case of Nicholas Sheley who is accused of killing Ronald Randall, 65, in Galesburg, IL on  June 28, 2008. I sure didn't plan to get so far behind, but Mr. Katfish has been quite ill the past several months and of course that is my main priority. I recently found out I can tap into the hospital's WiFi connection on my netbook, so here we go......

Although there have been a number of  hearings since my last report, not much happened during these hearings to actually progress this case towards trial, rather things have been pushed back...several times.  The "wheels of justice turn slowly" is not just a cliche, it's a reality. When I last wrote about this case the court was planning for the trial to start in early 2011. Now we are looking at the Summer or possibly Fall of 2011 before this trial gets under way.


When I started writing this post back on February 5 (after attending a hearing on the 4th), I had planned to try and work backwards to catch up on this case but it's just not going to happen. I'll just pick up from the most recent development that effects this case, and it's a big development ! On March 9, 2011, Illinois Governor Pat Quinn signed legislation abolishing the death penalty in Illinois, more than a decade after the state imposed a moratorium on executions out of concern that innocent people could be put to death by a justice system that had wrongly condemned 13 men. Quinn also commuted the sentences of all 15 inmates remaining on Illinois' death row. They will now serve life in prison with no hope of parole. I'll address the effect of this legislation on Nicholas Sheley's case in this entry.

For readers not familiar with this case, Nicholas Sheley is accused of killing eight people ( including Randall ) in a week long killing spree during the last week of June 2008.  Five of the other seven people were killed in Whiteside County, IL, a 20 year old woman, her 2 year old son and three men ages 25, 29 and 93. (Whiteside County is where Sheley is from.) An  Arkansas couple, both age 54,visiting the St. Louis, MO area were Sheley's last 2 (alleged) victims and were killed in Festus, MO. You can learn more about the week of Sheley's alleged killing spree and the weeks leading up to to it by clicking here to see an early post titled " Sheley's Trail of Terror".

With the death penalty abolished in IL, the maximum penalty Nicholas Sheley (if convicted for the death of Ronald Randall ) can face is a life sentence without the possibility of parole (LWOP).  From what I understand, the trial should start sooner, be shorter and less expensive (if convicted, no penalty phase to decide the death penalty).


Nicholas Sheley's defense most likely will consist of one lawyer instead of the three or four he has now. Jeremy Karlin is lead attorney on Sheley's defense team and would remain so. I'm not sure if the Office of the IL Attorney General would still assist the prosecution of this case, but wouldn't be surprised if they did because of the gravity of the alleged crimes. 

Because this is a capital case, Knox County has not been responsible for the costs of this case, funding has come from the Capital Litigation Trust Fund, that burden will now shift to the county and the unspent money in the Capital Litigation Fund will be reallocated to pay for services for victim’s families and law enforcement training.


In the mean time this case is status quo and will proceed as a death penalty case until the new legislation takes effect on July 1, 2011,  unless the state files a motion to withdraw the death penalty before then.
As of the February 4 hearing the next scheduled hearing in this case is a case management hearing on March 29, 2011. We should learn more then.

A final note, Missouri has not abolished the death penalty, so Nicholas Sheley may still face death if he is convicted for the deaths of Tom and Jill Estes.....whenever his case makes it's way there.



Chicago Tribune

Sphere: Related Content

Monday, January 24, 2011

Stacey Barker Hails The Massiah!

Today was another pre trial hearing in the murder case of Stacey Barker, 26, at the Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse in Lancaster, CA. Barker is accused of killing her 18 month old daughter, Emma Leigh Barker, on March 18, 2009. When I titled this story, "Stacey Barker Hails the Massiah!" I'm not referring to her praising the lord, Messiah, I have no idea what her religious tenets are. I'm referring to a motion her defense has filed that claims that the State of CA has violated her 6th amendment rights. I'll get into that soon, but first a little background to a case that seems to get stranger and stranger.

Barker originally reported to police that she was loading her daughter into the car after playtime at the Lancaster City Park, when she was attacked and rendered unconscious for several hours before she came to and realized her daughter was missing. After a trip to the hospital to treat her injuries, Stacey Barker was taken to the sheriff's department for questioning. Eleven hours after Emma was reported missing, Barker led law enforcement to her daughter's body that she had left in tall grass on the side of the freeway. Barker claimed her daughter's death was an accident, but because she was afraid of being blamed she disposed of her baby's body then inflicted injuries ( that were consistent with an attack )on herself,  removed and hid parts of her clothing and reported the kidnapping claim. It should be noted that Barker didn't call 911, she called her brother who made the 911 call to law enforcement. When LE arrived at the scene her brother and boyfriend were already there.( Just one more thing in this case that makes you go hmmmm.)

It was nearly a month after Emma's death, before Barker was arrested on April 23, 2009. The charges filed against the Stacey Barker included one count of Second-degree murder, one count of Assault on a Child Causing Death and one count of Child Abuse. Barker has been held at the Century Regional Detention Facility on a one million dollar bond since her arrest. Stacey Barker pled not guilty to all counts at her formal Arraignment on August 12, 2009.

The proceedings today, January 24, 2011 lasted only about a half hour. Stacey Barker's case wasn't called until 11:30 a.m.. The court lists her hearing as starting at 8:30 so Tori and our other friends did have to wait a while. ( I know that sometimes it can be an interesting wait because the court hears other cases in the mean time, but just the same.....Thanks again guys for your time and sharing what you see and hear!)

Defendant Barker didn't look so good when she came in today. Her hair looked like she had been wearing braids that she just took out and hadn't brushed, no makeup today either. Barker's mood seemed to match her appearance, she didn't make eye contact with her family or boyfriend in the courtroom.

I almost feel like I'm putting the cart before the horse by talking about the hearing before explaining the Massiah motion the defense has filed. I'll do that and then go back to the hearing.There have been no issues raised ( that we are aware of ) regarding "Miranda" warnings in this case, but as I said above the defense has filed a "Massiah" motion to suppress any testimonial evidence gathered by Witness X  and the content of the hearing was related to the motion. Let's go over both because the Massiah doctrine supplements Miranda, even though it is a separate and distinct rule.

Most US citizens know that law enforcement must give a  Miranda warning  before subjecting someone to any interrogation when being arrested ( taken into custody and are not free to leave, a situation the court ruled was inherently coercive ).  The purpose of the warning is to ensure the accused is aware of, and reminded of, their rights under the U.S. Constitution. The person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed that he or she has the right to remain silent, and that anything the person says will be used against that person in court; the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present at anytime during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent her or him. A person must clearly waive their fifth Amendment right against self incrimination and the right to an attorney before any evidence gathered in the interrogation will be considered admissible in court.

Just as Miranda gives us Fifth Amendment protection after an arrest, according to the Massiah Doctrine, after the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings (by indictment or by information, preliminary hearing or arraignment), the Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to rely on counsel as the “medium” between himself and the government. Thus, once adversary proceedings have begun, the government cannot bypass the defendant's lawyer and deliberately elicit statements from the defendant himself.. Massiah is based on the right to counsel. It's application turns not on the conditions surrounding police questioning, but on whether, at the time the government attempts to elicit incriminating statements from an individual, the criminal proceedings against that individual have reached the point at which the Sixth Amendment right to counsel attaches.

The difference between Massiah and Miranda is underscored by the “jail plant” situation, the case where a secret government agent is placed in the same cell with a person and instructed to induce him to implicate himself in the crime for which he has been incarcerated. Miranda does not apply, for the inherent coercion generated by custodial police interrogation is not present when a prisoner speaks freely to a person he believes to be a fellow inmate. Coercion is determined from the perspective of the suspect. Therefore, unless a person realizes he is dealing with a government agent, the government's efforts to elicit damaging admissions from him do not constitute “police interrogation” within the meaning of Miranda.

However, the Massiah doctrine would prohibit the government from using such tactics if adversary proceedings had already been initiated against the person. But the secret government agent was not completely passive in that case; he stimulated conversations about the crime charged. The Court, however, has permitted the government to place a completely “passive listener” in a person's cell and use the statements acquired by such an agent even though adversary proceedings have commenced against the person.

In order for a court to determine that a Massiah violation has occurred two conditions must exist:

1) There must have been an indictment, preliminary hearing or arraignment already held when the violation   occurred..
 2) The informant has to be acting as a government agent, he had to have acted under the direction of the government and there is a preexisting arrangement between the informant and the police.

The line between “active” and “passive” agents—between eliciting incriminating statements and merely listening—is an exceedingly difficult one to draw.

The Supreme Court held that when an inmate working for the government actively prompts an accused to make incriminating statements, this involves active interrogation and is a violation of the accused's Sixth Amendment right to counsel (United States v. Henry, 447 U.S. 264, 100 S. Ct. 2183, 65 L. Ed. 2d 115 [1980]). However, when a government agent passively listens to the accused's incriminating statements, there is no violation of the accused's Sixth Amendment right to counsel (Kuhlmann v. Wilson, 477 U.S. 436, 106 S. Ct. 2616, 91 L. Ed. 2d 364 [1986]). In Kuhlmann, the Court held that, to prove a violation of the Sixth Amendment, "the defendant must demonstrate that the police and their informant took some action, beyond merely listening, that was designed deliberately to elicit incriminating remarks."

Deputy District Attorney Kelly Cromer presented one witness today. Her name is Ellen Aragon. We learn she was the DA in the case which Witness X reportedly testified for the state against, in his own words, " a local street gang that I was trying to get out from under...."  Aragon said that Witness X was subpoenaed to testify in that case, it wasn't voluntary and his life and family had been threatened so he was placed in witness protection. I'll spare you a play by play of the questions Ms. Aragon was asked by DDA Cromer and Stacey Barker's Public Defender, Roberto F. Dager, because the questions were repetitive and in some cases vague, but the jest of it is....the state is trying to show that Witness X is/was NOT a government agent and the defense is trying to show that he IS/WAS.

The burden is the defendants to show that a Massiah violation has occurred and to be fair their efforts have been hampered somewhat by the fact that the case, X admits testifying in, is under seal. The state gave the defense transcripts concerning X's testimony in that case and recordings of Witness X interviews with the state about testifying. Judge Zackey made it very clear that no one except Dager and his investigator are allowed to see the information and neither are allowed to even talk about the contents with anyone else, including the defendant and her family.

Evidently the receipt of a benefit for testifying for the state implies an informant is an agent for the state ??? It's confusing because jailhouse snitches testify all the time for benefits, I guess the question is when was the agreement for benefits made.

Dager tried repeatedly to get Aragon to admit that X asked for benefits in exchange for his testimony (and convince the court?) that when Witness X was put into the Witness Protection Program that was the same as receiving a benefit. Judge Zackey said that Dager's use of the term "benefits" was vague and he didn't agree that entering a witness protection program is a benefit. The next hearing is February 7, hopefully at that hearing we will learn how the judge rules on the defense Massiah motion, if Witness X will be allowed to testify and regardless of his decision a trial date will be set. Judge Zackey stated again he wanted no more delays unless for an important reason adding that this delay caused by the introduction of Witness X to this case is very important.

Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey has his hands full with this decision.  No one wants a do-over in the event of a conviction in this case. Constitutional violations are definitely a consideration of an appellate court.

Preliminary hearing coverage



Sphere: Related Content

Sunday, January 9, 2011

A Visit to Orlando For A Hearing In The Casey Anthony Murder Case

I was fortunate to be able to spend 10 days in Tampa (Brandon), FL with family over the Christmas holiday. It was a fantastic trip....a lot of wonderful family memories were made :) However, one memory is not of time spent with my family, but a little side trip I made to Orlando, on December 20, to attend a hearing in the Casey Anthony case. Although the experience was interesting for me, the hearing ended up being pretty short and uneventful, so I decided not to take more time from my family to write about it.

Casey Anthony is charged with first-degree murder in the 2008 death of her 2-year-old daughter, Caylee Marie. She has pleaded not guilty, claiming a babysitter kidnapped her toddler. Caylee was last seen in June of 2008, but she was not reported missing until a month later. Her remains were found in woods near the family's home in December 2008.

Now that we've been home a few weeks and I'm caught up on some other cases I've been following, it seems like a good time to share my Orlando experience. Before leaving IL, I had printed up directions on Mapquest with directions from my nieces home to the Orange County courthouse in Orlando. The route was a pretty direct shot, but I'd be remiss if I didn't give kudos to Mapquest for their helpful directions... for example step #10. Take the 2nd LEFT onto E LIVINGSTON ST. If you are on N ORANGE AVE and reach E ROBINSON ST you've gone about 0.1 miles too far. (When you've never been to a location before, those extra details really help and Mapquest offers them through-out :)

Even though I drove between 70-80 mph (keeping up with traffic....honestly) most of way, the 90 mile trip took about 1 1/2 hours. Once I completed step 10 on my directions I noticed a sign that said "Juror Parking" leading into a parking garage, I took the turn and found a spot to park.

Orange County Courthouse complex  Orlando, FL
Coming out of the parking garage(building on left in picture) on ground level, I notice the courthouse is right in front of me (it's huge). I follow signs directing to the main entrance, right before entering, I pass Jose Baez heading in the other direction. I assume the attorneys have a different access but make a mental note that Baez has that "Dennis the Menace" type smile on his face that many (including me) have referred to as a "smirk".....seems that's his regular look. LOL, I bet he was an ornery kid.

I head on into the courthouse through the main entrance and see a long line of people going through security. Before taking my place in line, I ask at the information desk, "Where is Judge Belvin Perry's courtroom?" Without even looking up, the employee tells me, "Up on 23".  It took just a few minutes to go through the security line and then I head for the far bank of elevators that will go up to 23. Once on the 23rd floor I see Judge Perry's chamber on one side and the courtroom is on the other side of a waiting area. There are several people sitting and standing around. No one looks familiar until I notice the back of Dave Knechel (aka Marinade Dave) speaking to someone behind a pillar. I stand back until I have a chance to catch Dave's eye so that I can introduce myself to him. I then notice the person Dave was speaking with is Casey's attorney for the penalty phase, Ann Finnell. She appears to be looking for something in her briefcase so I'm not really interrupting. Right after we shook hands, a man with a walker called Dave over to him and introduced himself and his wife to Dave. Evidently a fan of Dave's blog. That's nice :).

There were a dozen or so people standing and sitting around the waiting area when Jose Baez got off the elevator and says hello to Ann Finnell and Dave. Baez says the hearing is down on the 19th floor and heads back to the elevator, everyone in the waiting area follows him. Dave and I end up on the same elevator as Ann Finnell and Jose Baez, there were others but I can't tell you who because no one is familiar. From the conversation, I learned one was local media and another was Cindy Anthony's current attorney, Mark Lippman. I don't remember who said it ( probably JB ) but there was work being done on Judge Perry's courtroom so the hearing will be held downstairs. Dave told me the courtroom on 19 is the smaller courtroom where Judge Strickland presided over the hearings in this case before he recused himself. (I guess I should have asked the information guy where Casey Anthony's hearing was instead of Judge Perry's court. Oh well, it was an interesting ride down.)

When we get off the elevator, Jose Baez, Ann Finnell and Mark Lippman  head on into the courtroom.
Evidently the rest of us have to wait :(  Moments later Cindy Anthony appears, peaks into the courtroom and is allowed in. Cindy is alone today. I wonder to myself if Cindy isn't single these days....pure speculation of course.....but the way she is dressed seems to be trying to lean towards a " younger, sexy ? " look and she may just be trying to hook up with a biker dude.. She is wearing gray jeans that are "muffin top tight". The legs of her jeans are tucked into boots that have buttons or buckles on the side. I remember them as a charcoal color with a felt or knit shaft, but have heard them referred to as black leather.(I could be wrong) She also has on a gray sweater with an black and purple argyle print on the front  and a purple knit shirt underneath. It seems she has toned down the jewelry a bit, but just an FYI from one 50ish gal to another....too tight boot cut jeans do not take the place of the current trend to wear skinny jeans tucked in boots and matchy matchy gives our age away every time.he..he... I don't want to seem too harsh on Cindy because I doubt she has money to keep up with the clothing trends, just saying.... If ya can't do it right......

I'm pretty sure I'm not alone to speculate that Cindy's attempt at a "tight younger look" and George's repeated absence from court  may be an indicator of trouble in Anthonyland. I noticed after the hearing that George Anthony authorized Lippman Law Offices, P.A. to issue a media statement on December 17, 2010  rebutting statements George's "alleged" girlfriend, Krystal Holloway (aka River Kruz) made to the Sheriff department, in a February 2010 interview. The interview was released as a  2 part audio as part of a document dump on December 17. Who knows?  The state of the Anthony's marriage really isn't relevant to the criminal case...personally, given what we know about their "history" I  would have dumped him long ago.

When we (the public) are allowed into the courtroom Casey has already been brought in. The prosecution side (on the right) is pretty empty but behind the defense in the front row is Kathy Belich from WFTV, at the end of her row is a huge television camera. There are people from various media working with electronics in each row on that side as well. In the second row behind KB is Cindy and her attorney. There was another couple behind them......until they moved over to my row.....later I read the couple came down from NY for the hearing and she is a regular over at The Hinky Meter. I'm disappointed I didn't know who they were. (Waving at Kathy now!)

There is a tall bald man (accompanied by a short blond woman), that Dave had spoke with earlier out in the hall, sitting in the second row behind the state. I assume he is with the media because he got into the courtroom ahead of us. Later I learn he is Jim Lichtenstein, a producer from NBC for the Today show. I've had heard this guy usually sits with Cindy Anthony in the courtroom, but not today. Dave K. took the aisle seat in the third row behind them. I take a seat in the back row (after checking to make sure I have a good view of Casey if she turns to the side).


December 10
For the most part, I can only see Casey Anthony from behind, but I noticed at the hearing a week or so ago, Dec 10, that Casey seems to have lost the weight she gained during her first year or so in jail. Wonder if this is a factor in her weight loss? (I came across that article looking for a photo online of the courthouse. ew!) I've never followed much on Casey's commissary purchases, beyond her own account in her letters to Robyn Adams, but it seems she has options beyond the meals served to prisoners at the jail, so the weight loss must be intentional.
December 20


Right away, I notice Casey has on the same shirt she wore at the last hearing, a long sleeve blue and white pinstripe oxford with ruffles along the buttons. Honestly, it looks like she has been sleeping in it for the past 10 days. Today Casey has a multi-level ponytail that looks thrown together. Did she even plan on attending court today? Within minutes the gallery is filled behind the state and the hearing is ready to get under way. Judge Perry calls the case at 1:31 p.m. Jeff Ashton is the only representative for the state today (He looks very tired). . The attorney for the Orlando Sentinel, Rachel Fugate is sitting in the well behind the state's table.

This hearing was scheduled to hear a motion filed by Ann Finnell on November 23, seeking to seal the defense witness list for the penalty phase from public and media view. The motion couldn't be heard on the 10th because the media hadn't been noticed in the original motion.(oops Annie, don't let Jose rub off on ya) Judge Perry agreed to put a temporary seal on the list until the media had an opportunity to respond on sealing any part of the record.....and that brings us to today.

This is a video of the hearing:



Since I included the video of the hearing and it has already been heavily covered, I won't go through a play by play of the hearing but rather just provide a summary and some highlights.

Ann Finnell gave a 10 minute presentation to the court of her "MOTION TO SEAL PENALTY PHASE DISCOVERY RESPONSE" . Basically the defense stance is that with the excessive publicity making these witness' names public would impede Ms. Anthony's right to a fair trial and furthermore would result in a chilling effect with some witnesses being unwilling to come forward with information for fear of harassment and stalking. When Ms. Finnell  was finished Judge Perry asked if there was a response from the state. Assistant State Attorney Jeff Ashton said no.(The state already has access to the witness list so they have no stance on the sealing of the penalty phase witness list)

Rachel Fugate came to the podium to argue the Orlando Sentinel's motion to intervene. Fugate argued that there should not be a blanket seal, but that the defense should argue to have certain witness's information sealed on a case-by-case basis adding the burden to prove a predjudice exists is the defense burden, not the court's.

Oops...no talking out of turn Jose
 Just One and a half  minutes into Ms. Fugate's argument, Jose Baez rose from his seat to object to the still photographer zooming in on notes his client was writing. (20.33 on the video above). Immediately Judge Perry stopped Baez and reminded him court procedures 101....by pointing out that only one lawyer has the floor....and it wasn't him.! Ann Finnell quickly stood and objected. “Well,” the judge added, “unfortunately, the objection will be noted and overruled.” Ms. Fugate not only picked up her argument where she left off, she also made statements in defense of the court photographer who is a seasoned pro and challenged the defense to find an example where something like that has been published. Judge Perry gave Ann Finnell the opportunity to rebut Ms. Fugate's argument, particularly the part of her argument that the claims the defense motion is too broad.

After Ms. Finnell's short rebuttal, Judge Perry says he will reserve ruling on the motion to seal penalty phase witnesses, adding the list will remain temporarily sealed until his ruling is made .

Perry also reminded defense attorney Jose Baez that he has until Thursday (December 23) to file a motion to pursue meter reader Roy Kronk as a possible suspect in Caylee's death. Kronk found Caylee's body in a wooded area on Suburban Drive near the Anthony home. Perry said he assumed Baez had given up on that defense strategy, but Baez said he misunderstood his deadline and thought he has until December 31 to file.  Judge Perry makes it clear that deadline was for motions to be heard not filed.

Jose Baez was on his feet again about an issue regarding a previous sidebar ruling. Perry called the attorneys up for a short sidebar. I'm not certain, but I think the sidebar had something to do with Dr. Henry Lee. The judge told Baez to supply him with some info he needs re Dr. Lee and the hearing was over.....all 26 minutes of it. :)

I almost forgot to mention....the guy sitting next to me had a small camera/video recorder in his hand throughout the hearing. Several times I thought he was going to sneak a picture of Casey, when the defense went to the stand for the sidebar he made his move. I don't know if he got the shot, but a bailiff came over and told him to knock it off.

I rode down in the elevator and walked out in front of the courthouse with Dave Knechel. I met Dave for the first time in person today, but as a long time reader of his blog, I feel like I have known him for a long time so I felt comfortable enough to give him a big ole hug before I left the courthouse. Just for the record, Dave doesn't smell like dirty laundry, but very much like Polo cologne.Nice! LOL

On January 7, 2011 Judge Perry issued a ruling that denied the defense motion to seal that was argued on December 20th. The order states that arguments made by Casey Anthony's attorneys fell short of the standards required to seal the list of witnesses who will be called if Casey is convicted and there is a sentencing phase.I couldn't find the order itself but here is the article that appeared in the Orlando Sentinel.

This case is expected to go to trial on May 9, 2011. If convicted of 1st degree murder of her daughter Caylee, Casey Anthony may face the death penalty.
Sphere: Related Content

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Will Witness X "Melt" Stacey Barker's Defense ? Chances Of A Forecasted Plea Deal Diminishing....Blizzard Hits The AV !

When last reporting to you about the Stacey Barker murder case, we told you about a storm that was brewing in the case of the 26 year old Lancaster, CA woman who is accused of killing her 18 month old daughter, Emma, dumping the baby's body along the freeway and falsely reporting she was attacked and Emma kidnapped, on March 18, 2009. Barker has been held on a $1 million bond, in the Central Regional Detention Center in Lynwood since her arrest on April 23, 2009.

There have been several delays since this case was first scheduled to go to trial last Summer. The trial is now expected to take place early 2011. The "storm" that's been picking up momentum this winter involves an inmate who exchanged written and recorded communications with Barker during their 90 mile transport each direction to Lancaster for court hearings.Over the last couple months, during the exchange of discovery some 'flurries' with potential to develop into a plea deal have blown in concerning these communications. On December 3, 2010, when Superior Court Judge Hayden Zackey scheduled the hearing for December 17, he said," It's my understanding the parties are having an ongoing discussion regarding this case....we'll see if those discussions are fruitful on December 17th" adding, "Kelly will make a motion......you will make a motion, right?" DDA Cromer agreed. Zackey continued," If an agreement can't be reached and this goes to trial, January 7 will be a pre-trial hearing that will start 0 of 59." The next day's headline of the Antelope Valley Press (AVP) was much more blunt, reading,  " Baby Barker's Mom Seeks Plea Deal !!"
 
Well...The hearing was held on December 17 at the Michael Antonovich Antelope Valley Courthouse in Lancaster, CA....... One of the rulings by the court, early on in the hearing, is in reference to the inmate who may testify of his communication with the defendant. From here on, the court ruled, in court this witness will be identified as "Mr. X" or as "Witness X". Neither the content or time line of the communication between Witness X and Stacey Barker has been disclosed in open court, but when the state told the court there are 4 Audio recordings, Barker's Public Defender, Roberto F. Dager shook his head and said I only have one.....so we  learned from this hearing that the winds of discovery are still blowing.

Even though there wasn't a plea agreement reached between the parties and a court date wasn't set,  this proved to be a very interesting hearing.  Afterward, some are forecasting this case will develop into a full blown trial instead of a plea agreement.

For some reason the next hearing is scheduled for January 24, 2011 instead of on the 7th as Judge Zackey had eluded to on December 3. (I'm not sure how this affects the count? Does 0 of 59 now start on the 24th? Anyone know? That would take us into March, if so.)

It sounds as though our "friends in the courtroom" had a long day in court on the 17th, not just because there was testimony from several witnesses, but because this case didn't come up until almost lunch time. (Again,  all of you who attend, thanks so much for using your time to attend the hearings and especially for sharing what you see and hear with us.)

Several of the witnesses to testify at this hearing were law enforcement who have also been present at the last several hearings.....apparently in anticipation of being called to testify. Detective. Sgt. Sandra Nava, Detective Sgt.Walls and a uniformed Sheriff's officer, whom we have seen in court before, but didn't know either his name or relevance to the case (Both Detectives had testified at the preliminary hearing so they were familiar)...The uniformed officer's  name is Sims and he is a module officer in the 'high power' section of the Men's Central Jail . We'll hear more from him in a bit.

Tori took some very extensive notes from the testimony in this hearing. She commented that she couldn't keep up with the pace the hearing was moving. I think you'll agree, she did a great job of capturing the "climate" in the courtroom. It was a blizzard! 
I wanted to share this picture T sent, this is taken  looking out her window in the Antelope Valley on January 2, 2011. It was a blizzard.....certainly not a common occurrence in the desert!
A note of interest....January 2 is Stacey Barker's birthday........hmmmm....... is that blizzard an omen or coincidence?


Here is Tori's report from the December 17 hearing:

When Stacey Barker came into the courtroom, she had her hair in a pony tail, all curled with full make up on  in contrast to her yellow scrubs.We were about the only ones in the gallery (the usual people) besides the defendant's family. SB came into the courtroom with a half smile looking at her family behind the defense table before she sat down next to Dager and looked straight ahead.

First called to the stand is Officer Sims. Before Sims is sworn in, PD Dager asks Judge Zackey to make Detective Nava  and Detective Walls leave the courtroom during Sims testimony. Dager says they going to testify and he doesn't want them to hear what Sims has to say....so they can't change their testimony. DDA Cromer told the court she needs Nava to help her with questioning. Judge Zackey announced it was his understanding Detective Walls wouldn't be testifying (Walls agreed) and decided to allow Detective Nava  to stay. PD Dager said he wants it on the record that he does not like it. Judge Zackey said " Detective Nava will be under oath and I don't feel she will change her testimony based on Sims testimony."

Men's Central Jail
 Officer Sims is sworn in and takes the stand. Cromer asks him about his job, then she asks him how he knows Mr.X. Sims said he is an officer in the unit that housed Mr.X  in Men's Central Jail. The unit is a Protective custody unit and Mr.X is classified as a "High Power Inmate". Next, Kelly Cromer asked Sims why Mr.X contacted him?  Sims said X told him that he had information on a case and wanted him to contact the homicide detectives working the case for him. Sims said he told X ok, he wasn't sure what he could do, but he would try.

Now it's the defense' turn for cross examination. Roberto Dager asked Sims if he and X are friends? Sims replied, " There is a line of separation between an inmate and officer " adding," I don't cross that line with any inmate." Dager asked, " Well do you have friendly conversations with him? " Sims said, "What do you mean?" Dager continued," Like do you talk about football and stuff?" Sims said "Football ?....No..it's just a inmate/officer relationship sir!

Dager asks Sims," Do you trust Witness X? Sims said "I trust no one sir." Next, Mr.Dager asks the officer if X has discussed the reason he is in jail with him? Sims said," Not really." Dager makes several attempts to ask Sims a question, but NO one can understand what he's asking....evidently Judge Zackey understood where the attorney was trying to go....he asked the question in a way that the officer and the rest of us  understand...Dager wants to know how was it that every time SB and X had to go to court, they always seemed to be next to each other on the bus? Sims said," I don't know, X may have asked the transport driver or the bus officer if they could sit next to each other." Dager replies, "Oh, so you get to pick your own seat on the bus?" Sims said," NO." Dager asked, " Then why was HE allowed to pick where he sat?" Sims told Dager he didn't know, adding he wasn't the bus officer. Now PD Dager asks Officer Sims, "Did you put X in contact with Detective Nava at some point ? " Sims said, Yes, he set up the call between the detective and X. Dager asks," How many calls did he get from Nava? Sims said, "A few." Dager gets in a few more questions (didn't note) and then we're told to go to lunch and be back at 1:30pm

While having lunch we discussed the possibility that Witness X is at the courthouse and going to be on the stand today. We heard  X  mentioned and someone said "You can ask HIM that question yourself"  but don't remember what question it was or who asked it because things were going fast!

Sure enough, when we go back after lunch, the Judge asks everyone in the front rows to move back 2 rows....then they bring out Mr.X... He is in chains so tight that his hands look deformed in front of chest....he is wearing glasses and doesn't look as evil as he did the first time we saw him....I think he knows that we are the 'bloggers' because he looks right at us and SMILES a broad smile (admittedly, no one else was really there in the gallery) We noticed when X came in, he and SB also shared looks, he had a joker grin on his face and she just had a sour look on her face. Witness X has been housed at The California State Prison at Lancaster since entering into the 10 year plea agreement with the state.

Judge Zackey tells the inmate he will be identified as Witness X from now on.

DDA Kelly Cromer starts the questioning of this state's witness, " How did you meet Ms.Barker? Mr.X said he "conversated" with her on the bus ride to court, she was in the CAGE next to his cage. He said that she started talking about her case and  at first, he thought she was innocent.

Kelly asks X, " How did you come to talk to with Detective Nava?" Mr X replied he no longer believed Stacey Barker's story of what happened because she had told him so many different stories of what happened on every bus ride. Mr.X emphasized that he just wanted justice for a dead child.....so no matter how much drama he had to go through it was the RIGHT THING TO DO.

Next Cromer asks Witness X if he works for the Government in any official way? NO was his answer.
Kelly asked," Are you a Agent for the Government?" Again, X replied NO.
 "Did you get any special deals for your testimony against Ms. Barker?" X replied," No I didn't , I did not ask for anything in return." 
Cromer asked a few other questions and then PD Roberto F. Dager is on cross....

Dager starts, "WITNESS X, How did you come in contact with Detective Sandra Nava?" Witness X relies, " I had been talking with Stacey Barker......she loves to talk about her case......I started not believing her story and asked to talk to the Detectives working her case."
Dager questioned X further, "So you talked to Nava and told her that you had information from Stacey Barker about this case and you wanted to try to get more out of her?" Witness X answers,"Yes."  Mr. Dager asked X, "What did Sandra Nava say during your phone call?" X said, "She wasn't interested in this information , but she said she would contact the District Attorney and ask if they needed what he knew or thought he could get from her."

Dager then asked X some (allegedly ) dumb questions.8D Witness X ( and others) looked dumbfounded as to what Dager was asking. Judge Zackey asked the question another way and X, without missing a beat, said OH, Ok and answered the question, then shook his head and said "This guy is making me dizzy" ....Judge Zackey asked X if he wanted some water and X said "Yes, please". LOL

Dager started questioning X about how he got next to SB on the bus. Witness X answered," Because I asked and you know......they know I don't see girls that often, so it was nice."

Dager asked X, "Why did you want to get information from Ms. Barker? X answered, " Because, like I said before, I started to think she was guilty and if she was, I wanted her to spend the rest of her life in jail!"
Next, PD Dager asked witness X," Why were you in love with her? " Kelly Cromer said, "OBJECTION!" ...X answered anyway, laughing, he said, " NO WAY. " Dager fired back, " Then why did you want her in jail for life?"  X said, " Because I thought it was the right and moral thing to do for this child. I am against abuse and murder of women and children.

Dager kinda smirked like sure buddy.....
"So you get what you want, huh?" Mr X said," No." Dager asks X if the Bus driver knows he is trying to get information from Stacey Barker?"  This time X said," Yes."  Dager says, "Oh.... so that is why you got the seating?"

Dager then asked  X how long he has been in the system.  X said, "Since 1993."
PD Dager- "How long was your first stint in prison?"
Mr.X-..."About 4 years."
PD Dager-"And the second time?"
X-" About 5 years, I don't know something like that."
PD Dager- "So you know the system and know how to work it...
DDA Cromer Objects..argumentative! Judge Zackey, "Sustained."
PD Dager moves on..."How many times have you been to court here?"  Mr.X replies,"A lot."
Next Dager said to X, "So you have a friend in lock up that can do things for you? X replied," I have no friend here. I think all the officers don't really like me." Dager continues, "What about (? ), a lock up officer at the court that is a woman. You say on tape to Stacey Barker that you can get special treatment from her." Witness X said, "What... like extra lunch or what kind of special things??"?  Dager said, "Sure." X said, "No, nothing special, I eat a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and a apple, just like everyone else!"

Mr.Dager seems to finally come to the point he is trying to make when he says, "Do you know what a SNITCH IS?" Mr.X said, "Sure."  Kelly spoke up and said, " DEFINE Snitch....I am sure Mr.Dager can."

Barker's Public Defender, Dager, then asks X, " Are you a jailhouse informant and have you testified as an informant in other cases? X said, " I testified in one other case." Dager asked X," Did you get anything special for that testimony?" Witness X answered,"No."  Dager asks," What about the apartment and money?  Mr.X replies," Oh. Well, I was in the witness protection program that is why."
Dager asks/states,"So you gave information on the MEXICAN MAFIA?" X replied," No, I gave information on the gang I was in ( that was affiliated with the Mexican Mafia)." Dager asks X, "What kind of gang was that?" Witness X told Dager, "It was a local street gang that I was trying to get out from under...."

Dager asks X if he has Agent status? X says, "No, I'm not a Agent." 
Dager said," Then why on the tape do you ask, 'Do I get a badge'? and one of the officers said," Ok, you'll get a badge?" X laughed and said, " That was a joke..." 

 PD Dager now asks, "Who suggested you wear a wire?  X said  he did. Dager said, "Who wired you?" Witness X says, " It wasn't really a wire, it was a tape recorder that was in my pocket." Dager, "Did they tell you how to question her?" X said," The only thing they told me was to let her talk, do not question her about  her case, just let her do the talking and if she goes on to other things just guide her back to her case."
Apparently Mr. Dager has a hearing problem, he asks again," So they told you what to ask her?" Witness X said,"NO, They me NOT to question her, just let her talk, she does talk a lot." Dager asked X, "Who wrote who first? X said, "She wrote me first."

Next, Dager asked X about his other case. X said his first trial hung and when it was going to go to trial again he was offered 10 years...Dager asks," How does a 25 to life 3rd strike felon get a deal for 10 years? X told Dager, he was offered that and it was 'sweet' so he took it.

Obviously, Dager is wanting to know if (or imply that) the DA on that case gave X a sweet deal in the other matter because he was working Stacey Barker for the state. X was relaxed on the stand and did not get mad at the questions asked. He kinda laughed at a lot of them asked by Dager. When X answered some of the questions, SB would make a look and lean in to Dager's ear and tell him things. X did not give Dager an INCH...he stood his ground, it's obvious he knows his way around the court.


Detective Sandra Nava is next on the stand. The state only has a few questions for Nava, just foundational things like credentials, involvement with the case......

When Dager does cross, he asks Nava most of the same questions he asked X.... about the wire,  how many times was X on the bus when he had no hearing (6 to 8 times)...Nava was only on the stand for a short time...

The last witness called was Ted Swanson, again, the state just laid out the foundation for Swanson's testimony. He was the prosecutor on X's most recent criminal case. Swanson was asked by Dager if he had given X any reward for ratting on Barker? Swanson said, No, he didn't. At that time he didn't even know what or who X had information about, he was just working X's case from the file...
Dager asks Swanson how does a 25 to life felon get a 10 year sentence? Swanson said that the 3rd strike law is based on the merits of the case..(3 strikes law has changed since it's inception) Dager asks Swanson why X said "he got a sweet deal" and Swanson said, "Well, anything other then life is a sweet deal, I would guess."

Dager is taking X's words and phrases as a man of 45-50 or so would, some of the things that X said are in street terms and young adult lingo. I am sure Dager doesn't know that. Sweet deal to Dager means X got some type of consideration for ratting SB out....To X it means....hell yeah, sweeeettt (good) I don't have to do life behind this POS child molester. 

For those who don't know about X's 3rd strike, it was a charge of robbery from an incident with a registered child molester who had tried to arrange private guitar lessons with Witness X's daughter. According to X, a new trial could have gone either way because witnesses were caught in lies and other things. Reportedly, the jury was hung in a 7 to5 split to convict...when they went to the table the state may have thought it better just to make a deal with him given  almost half of the last jury was ready to acquit X.

Again, Dager seems to think ( or imply)  that Swanson's boss made a deal with X for the information against SB but as Swanson said " I knew little or nothing about what information X had " so Dager is going to interview Swanson's boss to see if he might have made a deal with X. As desperate as this may seem, the defense really must try to discredit this testimony.....particularly if it supports statements Barker made to law enforcement before she was arrested.

Dager told the court he  wants to talk to X's Public Defender on the that case, the DDA Swanson's boss and he also wants to revisit previously filed motions.....Change Of Venue, Excluding media, etc... Judge Zackey said that can all be done on the 24th.... this was just a fact finding hearing and that he would offer a ruling next month. Should he find the inmate was acting as a government agent, Zackey said he suspects his only order would be that all audio tapes be given to Dager before trial.. ( Perhaps the state has just turned over the one audio recording they plan to use at trial ?) " The reality is, the information gathered by this witness was recorded " Judge Zacky said adding, "The documents and recordings speak for themselves."

We should learn more at the hearing on the 24th.....Will witness X 's testimony and communications with SB be allowed at trial? Will there be a trial?.....Or,  once the blizzard has blown over will this case result in a plea deal? If only we knew a weatherman who could predict this for us......
Sphere: Related Content